On Mar 12, 2009, at 12:46 PM, Jim Leftwich wrote:
I completely disagree, which simply goes to show that there can be
very different informed perspectives on what constitutes an
interaction designer.
Honestly and with all due respect, you're basically talking out of
both sides of your mouth with this post, Jim.
You're getting hung up on a detail point: That using a digital tool
over pencil and paper for design sketching and process work is somehow
being negated in this discussion. It's not. The larger point is that
people who do NOTHING BUT deliver line art style wireframes and
workflow diagrams are about to get lapped a few times over in this
field by up and coming designers who will be able to run circles
around them both in the hard skills of craft and the soft skills of
design vision and communication.
Don't shoot the messenger here, but you all have been warned.
Most of my 25-year-long career has been based on high-fidelity flows
(both wireframes and high-fidelity wireframes with production
graphics as part of them). These have been delivered to dozens of
different types of engineering groups and individuals for
implementation in a vast range of products, platforms, software, and
systems.
So it's entirely possible. Again we see that our field has a broad
range of possibilities, and not a narrow definition.
You just stated that "production graphics" were part of the process,
which is obviously beyond "wireframes." So I'm not sure why you're
disagreeing with the larger point.
I've always spent a great deal of time on my flows, both as
early-stage pencil sketches, low-fidelity digital wireframes and
thumbnail graphic flows, and then on to higher fidelity graphics and
heavily described/note-intensive flows and documentation.
You're again bringing in stuff beyond the crude line work wireframes.
Are you arguing the larger point or agreeing with it? It appears you
are validating the larger point.
I've always considered time doing flows to be thinking time. I'm
using these graphical maps to consider alternative patterns,
arrangements, configurations, and relationships. In my own work
there's something about doing the graphical layout that supports my
flow state and ability to think about the overall dynamic
interactional architecture (I've used Illustrator and Photoshop in
combination to do flows and documenation for the past 20 years,
SuperPaint prior to that, and MacPaint back in the early days).
Again... stuff that's not wireframes in the sense of what we've been
discussing to this point.
I like maps and flows because it lets me examine alternative patterns
faster. I can then also have there there to communicate with -
primarily with my associate engineer, but also with clients or other
associates (or apprentices that are working with me).
Fine. But you're still doing busywork if you are taking the time to
create digital mockups that effectively will get thrown away and never
see the light of day. If you have the time and budget, that's great.
But to claim you're not doing busywork is disingenuous. You can do all
of that stuff with pencil and paper and inking and such on projects.
In fact, where you don't have the time and budget, I bet you do. We
all do if push comes to shove.
You can do it an order of magnitude faster with pencil and paper.
But that's a distraction. It's not the point.
The point is that there are people in this field who think their job
is to make wireframes, and nothing else. Dave's larger point was that
has to go away. I've been saying that for years, and I'm glad to hear
him say it now.
--
Andrei Herasimchuk
Chief Design Officer, Involution Studios
innovating the digital world
e. [email protected]
c. +1 408 306 6422
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... [email protected]
Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
